All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The third council of occupants' representatives of the F apartment in Gwangju City (hereinafter "the apartment in this case") passed a resolution on the use of the electric inspection allowance at the third council of occupants' representatives, and the five council of occupants' representatives also paid the electric inspection allowance to the management office employees in accordance with the above resolution. Thus, the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment in this case did not arbitrarily use the above inspection allowance, and there was an enemy that Defendant B received KRW 500,000 from the controlled entity, etc. regarding the case of receiving money and valuables on May 8, 2010, but it was not used as the cost of the examination of occupation, and therefore, there was no little fact that Defendant A used it as the cost of the examination of occupation, and thus, the contents indicated in the large person report (hereinafter "the instant substitute report")

B. In addition, Defendant B retired from the position of the Dong representative of the apartment building of this case, and informed Defendant A of the same contents as indicated in the report of this case to prevent him from going to the next Dong representative, without faithfully examining whether or not the above information was true, Defendant A merely provided a certificate of contents requesting explanation to the council of occupants' representatives without faithfully examining whether or not the above information was true. At the time when the council of occupants' representatives did not respond to it, Defendant A was not only prepared and posted the report of this case. At the time, Defendant A requested funds necessary for the establishment of a female council to the council of occupants' representatives but was not rejected. In light of the fact that Defendant A requested funds necessary for the establishment of a new council of occupants' representatives and was not an organization that was not an organization that was the title holder of the report of this case, and that the fact that the Defendants were recorded in the report of this case, but also damaged the reputation of the council of occupants' representatives, the Defendants’ act of this case can be sufficiently recognized as having been prepared and posted for the purpose of the council of occupants' representatives.